Global Warming is a hoax.

[Red Knight]

I don't have time to go into a lot of detail here, however, the link I am posting describes the observed changes to the Earth in relation to the sun. This aspect of the Earth has a far greater impact on climate change than the pittance of CO2 we spew into the air. Climate change is inevitable. Does that mean we should throw caution to the wind and pollute to out hearts content? No. Live as cleanly as you can afford, and help others to do the same. Be good stewards, but the polar caps won't melt away, and greenland was once green.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles"]Milankovitch Cycles[/url]

Red

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1236070' date='Apr 9 2007, 08:18 AM']If we quit eating meat, then the cow population would be out of control!! We should eat MORE meat! One because its delicious, and B to prevent cows from ruling the earth[/quote]

Yeah, they're already ruling India!

Edited April 9, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1236041' date='Apr 9 2007, 11:32 AM']just a quick question, i havnt read the whole thread so sorry if this has been mentioned. But what do people have to gain from wanting to prove global warning true (if its so false). Like everyone is pretty crazy about it now. Are they simply mislead, and honestly want to help the planet?[/quote]Politics, baby. It's all about Politics, power, personal ideologies, etc.

Gore has used Global Warming as a political tool to advance his political career, and has been pretty successful at it.

Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.

Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past evironmental 'crimes'.

Some people just see it as a way to destabalize the economies of the large developed countries.

Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.

Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.

Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?

For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.

I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.

What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?

The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.

Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.

This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?

These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.

hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...

[dairygirl4u2c]

global warming is the sort of thing that's like. if it happens, retrospectively we'll be like, dang we were idiots for not doing anything. if it doesn't happen, retrospectively we'll be like dang we were idiots for worrying about it.

it looks like the future will look at us as idiots one way or another.

[ThomasDM]

I'm amazed by the lack of reason and logic in this debate.

We're taking millions and millions of years of carbon that's been locked away and out of the cycle for so long....and tossing it all into the atmosphere in only a few decades - declining to accept that it could upset any sort of balance?

The evidence on global warming keeps coming in. It's getting stronger and stronger, and the deniers of global warming are having the carpet pulled from under their feet.

Many of the arguments in denial of global warming are based on a misunderstanding of the way that climate works.

To deny that sending millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in only a few decades will upset any balance shows a very huge lack of foresight or logic when dealing with the topic.

The computer models [which time has shown to be very, very accurate seeing as many of their predictions have already come true] predict the displacement of millions and millions of people...many deaths happening in the wake of all of this. So it's either the doing of mankind through global warming, or an act of God. And last I checked, God promised not to do something like that again.

To say that the science is irrelevant on this matter is frightening to say least. Many of the same PR firms and so called 'experts' that deny the human element of gluttony [a sin by the way, so please stop trying to justify it] in the onset of Global Warming are the very same people and PR firms that denied that Cigarettes are addictive or have any link to Cancer. It's the same tactic.

The Science is very important on this matter...and if you deny that, you're not being reasonable. Science is objective - it has to be, it's driven by evidence, not by rhetoric - whereas the Anti-Global warming Lobby as funded by Exxon has a very clear agenda.

To argue that the earth has always being going through huge changes is correct...but not many of those changes have been as global as the one that we're up against now. And in the past it was due to volcanoes...this time it's do to humans [the evidence leads to 90% certainty on this] and we have a chance to save the lives of millions and millions of people if we work to cut our emissions by 70% by 2050...that is what is needed to stabilize the climate. Millions of human lives are at stake, millions of animal species are threatened by extinction, and the worlds food producing regions will be some of the hardest hit. If we continue with this sin of gluttony - we'll greatly reduce the carrying capacity of our planet, causing many more to fall into starvation.

This is an issue where the worlds poorest are threatened the most. What would Jesus advocate in the face of such a thing? Ignore it and with 90% certainty allow so much more human suffering and starvation as well as destroying so much of the land that God gave to us? Or would he advocate making small changes in our lifestyle to do our part to help others, to fight starvation, to preserve the land etc...

All you have to do is walk a bit more, be more conscious of your purchases [smaller cars etc], keep efficiency in mind...etc. If you're sacrificing a bit of convenience by driving less you can use the money that would have been otherwise spent on gas and spend it instead on the poor, give to a charity, etc. It's a very noble cause and doesn't require us to give up any other noble causes to help out. We can still fight for God and for good everywhere we go. You can be environmentally friendly AND still stand for the rest of your morals. Trying to live a more humble, more efficient life - thus giving the money you save to the less fortunate and helping to fight displacement and starvation all at the same time is a very noble cause. What would Jesus do?

What do you have to loose? It requires a modest sacrifice on your part, and you can do so much good. Who would you be hurting by living more humbly and efficiently and with more concern for your fellow man?

Answer me that.

-Tom

Edited April 10, 2007 by ThomasDM

[ThomasDM]

An open reply to Anomaly in the efforts to better educate him on the topic:

[i]
Politics, baby. It's all about Politics, power, personal ideologies, etc.

Gore has used Global Warming as a political tool to advance his political career, and has been pretty successful at it.
[/i]

Most people in Europe don't concern themselves with Al Gore, many have not even heard of him - this isn't his cause, by fighting the man you don't fight the science. Please research the term: "ad hominem"

[i]
Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.
[/i]
Could you please provide a source for such rhetoric? Or is it, dare I say, rhetoric? I don't know which countries you speak of, and which benevolent powerhouses have been crippled by the facts...but say you're correct...do you mean to tell me that the amount of disparity between nations is acceptable? Do you mean to tell me that Americans are so rich because they're hard workers, and that Africans are all lazy and that is the cause of their circumstance? Or look at the middle east where one country can be extremely rich, and the other very poor...all due to the placement of oil resources. Please indulge me in how such a huge gap between the rich and the poor is what Jesus would have favored.

[i]
Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past environmental 'crimes'.
[/i]
Why should people be punished for defacing private property, but not for destroying vast tracks of endangered habitat and aboriginal peoples' homes? The Inuit have nearly lost their culture and are being forced away from their melting homeland because of Global Warming.

[i]
Some people just see it as a way to destabilize the economies of the large developed countries.
[/i]
You've just repeated a previous point, this is not a separate argument. Please see point number 2.

[i]
Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.
[/i]
You speak of poor science...but in the last 10 years not a single shred of evidence has been published in a peer reviewed science journal that disputes Man-made Global Warming. The science that supports the theory of Global Warming is very good indeed, the evidence is published in peer reviewed journals so that it may be criticized, tested, disputed etc. Why haven't people who dispute Global Warming published anything with such integrity? Are they afraid of being cross-examined?

[i]
Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.
[/i]

Okay I'm going to bite the bait and answer your point 2, and this all in one fell swoop all using Logic.

Switzerland is rated as having the most competitive economy in Europe.

"The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world." [url="http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm"][Source][/url]

And they've already met their goals for Kyoto"

"Switzerland due to its size is heavily active in recycling and anti-littering bans, all garbage (except dangerous items, batteries etc.) in Switzerland must be disposed of in government approved bags which can only be bought from local shops and grocery stores. These special bags include a pollution tax thereby urging people to use less. Swiss health officials and police often open up garbage which has been deposited in the wrong bags. They search for evidence such as old bills which connect the bag to the household/person they originated from. Fines for not using proper bags range from 200-500 Francs. Switzerland is one of the top recyclers in the world with roughly 98% of all recyclable items being recycled. Switzerland is also the only country in the Kyoto Treaty to have met their CO2 emission goals." [[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#_note-14"]Source][/url]

Many countries have already drastically reduced their dependence on fossil fuels.

[i]
Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?
[/i]

Since the rise of life, the earth reached an equilibrium...a Carbon Cycle that was stable. The average was 280 PPM of Carbon in the Atmosphere to keep this going, and it stayed like that for a long time. Since we started dumping all of those fossil fuels in the Atmosphere its jumped up to over 350 PPM.

[i]
For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.
[/i]
Yes they take more energy to make, but they use MUCH less energy through their life span than incandescents. An incandescent light bulb only converts 3% of its electricity to light, all the rest is wasted.

Accounting for the energy consumption disparity between the two, the incandescent with cause much more mercury to be released into the ecosystems [in a much more harmful form - particulate mercury from the coal plants] than a florescent.

[i]
I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.
[/i]
You remember that do you? Do you also remember how mosquitoes develop an immunity to DDT after about 6 years, and how it was being used way too much so as to create the perfect conditions for immune mosquitoes to develop? In fact that was one of the main purposes of the ban, to prevent the facilitation of mosquitoes immune to DDT, so that it could still be used to fight malaria. The international ban allowed for it's medical preventative use, it banned widespread agricultural use because that was doing more harm than good. Plus other pesticides were found to be less harmful and more resistant to facilitating immunity.

"The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However, a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives for controlling malaria, so public health use of DDT is exempt from the ban until such alternatives are developed."
Read what the Malaria foundation has to say about the DDT ban before you try to politicize things. [url="http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html"][Source][/url]

[i]
What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?
[/i]
You demonstrate a poor grasp of the Ozone hole threat. When CFC's get high into the atmosphere, UV rays break off the Chlorine molecule, which when floating free can destroy upwards of thousands and thousands of Ozone molecules which protect us from the harmful UV rays of the Sun. The ban of CFC's was very successful, promoted industry innovation to compensate, and many companies ended up saving money because of it. And the Montreal Protocol Ban on CFC's is working. Look at the facts, NASA scientists are seeing a gradual, but wholesome rebound in the Ozone Layer. [url="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025232.shtml"][Source][/url]

[i]
The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.
[/i]

That was in the 70's. The science has become more refined, more data is coming in, and we're getting a better picture of things. Progress moves forward, don't forget that.

[i]
Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.
[/i]
There are many places that are grossly over polluted in the world, and there are many places with water shortages and the threat of desertification. Research agriculture in Australia and how it's becoming ever more difficult with Global Warming. Please I beg of you, research things....

[i]
This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?
[/i]
Those things you list are what many environmentalists want, but many business interests in North America fight those innovations tooth and nail because they're not always as profitable as gluttony. Better things are happening in Europe where people are not so opposed to innovation at the cost of a little convenience.

[i]
These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.
[/i]
You and people like you who make this argument against recycling seem to assume that the metal ores are already above ground, in a pile, waiting for us to process them. Please research how much oil an open pit mine takes and how much pollution is caused by smelting ore.

[i]
hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...
[/i]
The source of your misinformation is duly noted.

Edited April 10, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236843' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:56 PM']An open reply to Anomaly in the efforts to better educate him on the topic:

[i]
Politics, baby. It's all about Politics, power, personal ideologies, etc.

Gore has used Global Warming as a political tool to advance his political career, and has been pretty successful at it.
[/i]

Most people in Europe don't concern themselves with Al Gore, many have not even heard of him - this isn't his cause, by fighting the man you don't fight the science. Please research the term: "ad hominem"

[i]
Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.
[/i]
Could you please provide a source for such rhetoric? Or is it, dare I say, rhetoric? I don't know which countries you speak of, and which benevolent powerhouses have been crippled by the facts...but say you're correct...do you mean to tell me that the amount of disparity between nations is acceptable? Do you mean to tell me that Americans are so rich because they're hard workers, and that Africans are all lazy and that is the cause of their circumstance? Or look at the middle east where one country can be extremely rich, and the other very poor...all due to the placement of oil resources. Please indulge me in how such a huge gap between the rich and the poor is what Jesus would have favored.

[i]
Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past environmental 'crimes'.
[/i]
Why should people be punished for defacing private property, but not for destroying vast tracks of endangered habitat and aboriginal peoples' homes? The Inuit have nearly lost their culture and are being forced away from their melting homeland because of Global Warming.

[i]
Some people just see it as a way to destabilize the economies of the large developed countries.
[/i]
You've just repeated a previous point, this is not a separate argument. Please see point number 2.

[i]
Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.
[/i]
You speak of poor science...but in the last 10 years not a single shred of evidence has been published in a peer reviewed science journal that disputes Man-made Global Warming. The science that supports the theory of Global Warming is very good indeed, the evidence is published in peer reviewed journals so that it may be criticized, tested, disputed etc. Why haven't people who dispute Global Warming published anything with such integrity? Are they afraid of being cross-examined?

[i]
Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.
[/i]

Okay I'm going to bite the bait and answer your point 2, and this all in one fell swoop all using Logic.

Switzerland is rated as having the most competitive economy in Europe.

"The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world." [url="http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm"][Source][/url]

And they've already met their goals for Kyoto"

"Switzerland due to its size is heavily active in recycling and anti-littering bans, all garbage (except dangerous items, batteries etc.) in Switzerland must be disposed of in government approved bags which can only be bought from local shops and grocery stores. These special bags include a pollution tax thereby urging people to use less. Swiss health officials and police often open up garbage which has been deposited in the wrong bags. They search for evidence such as old bills which connect the bag to the household/person they originated from. Fines for not using proper bags range from 200-500 Francs. Switzerland is one of the top recyclers in the world with roughly 98% of all recyclable items being recycled. Switzerland is also the only country in the Kyoto Treaty to have met their CO2 emission goals." [[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#_note-14"]Source][/url]

Many countries have already drastically reduced their dependence on fossil fuels.

[i]
Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?
[/i]

Since the rise of life, the earth reached an equilibrium...a Carbon Cycle that was stable. The average was 280 PPM of Carbon in the Atmosphere to keep this going, and it stayed like that for a long time. Since we started dumping all of those fossil fuels in the Atmosphere its jumped up to over 350 PPM.

[i]
For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.
[/i]
Yes they take more energy to make, but they use MUCH less energy through their life span than incandescents. An incandescent light bulb only converts 3% of its electricity to light, all the rest is wasted.

Accounting for the energy consumption disparity between the two, the incandescent with cause much more mercury to be released into the ecosystems [in a much more harmful form - particulate mercury from the coal plants] than a florescent.

[i]
I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.
[/i]
You remember that do you? Do you also remember how mosquitoes develop an immunity to DDT after about 6 years, and how it was being used way too much so as to create the perfect conditions for immune mosquitoes to develop? In fact that was one of the main purposes of the ban, to prevent the facilitation of mosquitoes immune to DDT, so that it could still be used to fight malaria. The international ban allowed for it's medical preventative use, it banned widespread agricultural use because that was doing more harm than good. Plus other pesticides were found to be less harmful and more resistant to facilitating immunity.

"The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However, a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives for controlling malaria, so public health use of DDT is exempt from the ban until such alternatives are developed."
Read what the Malaria foundation has to say about the DDT ban before you try to politicize things. [url="http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html"][Source][/url]

[i]
What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?
[/i]
You demonstrate a poor grasp of the Ozone hole threat. When CFC's get high into the atmosphere, UV rays break off the Chlorine molecule, which when floating free can destroy upwards of thousands and thousands of Ozone molecules which protect us from the harmful UV rays of the Sun. The ban of CFC's was very successful, promoted industry innovation to compensate, and many companies ended up saving money because of it. And the Montreal Protocol Ban on CFC's is working. Look at the facts, NASA scientists are seeing a gradual, but wholesome rebound in the Ozone Layer. [url="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025232.shtml"][Source][/url]

[i]
The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.
[/i]

That was in the 70's. The science has become more refined, more data is coming in, and we're getting a better picture of things. Progress moves forward, don't forget that.

[i]
Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.
[/i]
There are many places that are grossly over polluted in the world, and there are many places with water shortages and the threat of desertification. Research agriculture in Australia and how it's becoming ever more difficult with Global Warming. Please I beg of you, research things....

[i]
This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?
[/i]
Those things you list are what many environmentalists want, but many business interests in North America fight those innovations tooth and nail because they're not always as profitable as gluttony. Better things are happening in Europe where people are not so opposed to innovation at the cost of a little convenience.

[i]
These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.
[/i]
You and people like you who make this argument against recycling seem to assume that the metal ores are already above ground, in a pile, waiting for us to process them. Please research how much oil an open pit mine takes and how much pollution is caused by smelting ore.

[i]
hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...
[/i]
The source of your misinformation is duly noted.[/quote]
Am I to take you seriously? LOL
I thought you wanted to start another thread to debate somebody else's post.

Speaking of ad-hominem, please re-read my post in context with the question that was asked and try to be a little more honest.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1237045' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:35 PM']Am I to take you seriously? LOL
I thought you wanted to start another thread to debate somebody else's post.

Speaking of ad-hominem, please re-read my post in context with the question that was asked and try to be a little more honest.[/quote]

Yes I do wish for you to take me seriously for I've waged a fair, highly sourced, verbal affirmative on the AGW theory. I have resorted to facts rather than to rhetoric.

Also, Anomaly, Google gives the definition of Ad Hominem as follows:

[i]an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak.[/i]

[b]A perfect example would be[/b]: [i]Am I to take you seriously? LOL
I thought you wanted to start another thread to debate somebody else's post.[/i]

Notice how my argument, sources, and logic were not disputed with any substance - rather I was laughed at and dismissed. This would be an example of 'Ad Hominem'.

If you'll look above, I picked at your examples one by one. That is the opposite of an ad hominem attack, because I indisputably [i]was[/i] dealing with the topic at hand - Global Warming. We must keep anything personal out of this. This has nothing to do with who you were replying to, yours were alleged points against the highly supported theory of Global Warming...mine were counterpoints using sources.

As for reading into a previous post, I did...but I'm not accounting for that because I wanted to keep this as objective as possible. It is your turn to retort my statements with sources and thus we can keep this a debate in good spirit, on topic, and free from any rhetoric, fallacy, or deception.

Now if you will...your counterpoints and peer-reviewed scientific sources to support them [the more recent the better, as our technology and understanding of various atmospheric cycles has improved markedly] ...

-Tom

Edited April 10, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Jesus_lol]

oh one cool thing that you guys should check out. here in british columbia, there was recently a law passed that allowed people to sell "green" electricity(wind power, solar, etc) to the main power grid. makinging actually profitable to devote a certain amount of your lands, if you are on a farm or acreage, to energy production. ie 50 acres of windmills, one of which powers your houses enery needs and the rest you sell to the grid. i dont remember the figures but it can be incredibly lucrative to be environmentally concious. which is using capitalism (doing whatever costs less/makes more money) to improve the environment. after the initial costs of the equipment it would very little operating costs.

perfect, no?
would be interesting to see if this happens elsewhere.

[Guest T-Bone]

The problem with "green" energy is that there most of it takes a bigger environmental toll than "non-green" energy. It just has better PR reps.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1237252' date='Apr 10 2007, 01:39 AM']Yes I do wish for you to take me seriously for I've waged a fair, highly sourced, verbal affirmative on the AGW theory. I have resorted to facts rather than to rhetoric.

Also, Anomaly, Google gives the definition of Ad Hominem as follows:

[i]an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak.[/i]

[b]A perfect example would be[/b]: [i]Am I to take you seriously? LOL
I thought you wanted to start another thread to debate somebody else's post.[/i]

Notice how my argument, sources, and logic were not disputed with any substance - rather I was laughed at and dismissed. This would be an example of 'Ad Hominem'.

If you'll look above, I picked at your examples one by one. That is the opposite of an ad hominem attack, because I indisputably [i]was[/i] dealing with the topic at hand - Global Warming. We must keep anything personal out of this. This has nothing to do with who you were replying to, yours were alleged points against the highly supported theory of Global Warming...mine were counterpoints using sources.

As for reading into a previous post, I did...but I'm not accounting for that because I wanted to keep this as objective as possible. It is your turn to retort my statements with sources and thus we can keep this a debate in good spirit, on topic, and free from any rhetoric, fallacy, or deception.

Now if you will...your counterpoints and peer-reviewed scientific sources to support them [the more recent the better, as our technology and understanding of various atmospheric cycles has improved markedly] ...

-Tom[/quote]Ha ha ha. If you want to do this seriously, then let's dance. I have doubts you will, because your first comments pretty much identified your mind set with a straw man argument. Of course Al Gore has little to do with european politics, but what does european politics have to do with Al Gore's motives in making the movie 'AIT'? See what I mean? I made on observation on Al Gore's actions and suggested motive, which had nothing to do with europe.

If you want to dance, I'll let you pick the music. Tell me what you think 'Global Warming' is, what's is causing it, and what (if anything) society in general should be doing about it. You had proposed making a new thread about it in response to another's post. Do what you said. I'll let you state clearly what your stance is and make clear what standard for rebuttal you want.
Ready.
Set.
Go...

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1237547' date='Apr 10 2007, 06:23 AM']Ha ha ha. If you want to do this seriously, then let's dance. I have doubts you will, because your first comments pretty much identified your mind set with a straw man argument. Of course Al Gore has little to do with european politics, but what does european politics have to do with Al Gore's motives in making the movie 'AIT'? See what I mean? I made on observation on Al Gore's actions and suggested motive, which had nothing to do with europe.

If you want to dance, I'll let you pick the music. Tell me what you think 'Global Warming' is, what's is causing it, and what (if anything) society in general should be doing about it. You had proposed making a new thread about it in response to another's post. Do what you said. I'll let you state clearly what your stance is and make clear what standard for rebuttal you want.
Ready.
Set.
Go...[/quote]

Anomoly, I've stated very clearly what my stance is. I've provided very hard evidence to support my acceptance of the AGW theory, now if you'll please stop dodging my challenge, it's time for your rebuttal to my previous, long, post with many sources. Please answer it point by point, as I did yours.

The ball is in your court...you know my stance, it's now on you to disprove my claims and my evidence using verifiable scientific facts.

So without further ado, it really is your turn to provide a rebuttal to my point by point critique of your argument with sources. Now you need to answer to each and every one of my points using scientific evidence to back you up.

Please stop 'dancing' around the subject, the ball is in your court...rather than stalling, and asking me to clarify my position on AGW, which I've already made clear, just get on with it please....rebut my points - one by one - with evidence and sources of your own.

Lets do this, it's your turn.

-Tom

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1237555' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:17 AM']Anomoly, I've stated very clearly what my stance is. I've provided very hard evidence to support my acceptance of the AGW theory, now if you'll please stop dodging my challenge, it's time for your rebuttal to my previous, long, post with many sources. Please answer it point by point, as I did yours.

The ball is in your court...you know my stance, it's now on you to disprove my claims and my evidence using verifiable scientific facts.

So without further ado, it really is your turn to provide a rebuttal to my point by point critique of your argument with sources. Now you need to answer to each and every one of my points using scientific evidence to back you up.

Please stop 'dancing' around the subject, the ball is in your court...rather than stalling, and asking me to clarify my position on AGW, which I've already made clear, just get on with it please....rebut my points - one by one - with evidence and sources of your own.

Lets do this, it's your turn.

-Tom[/quote]Maybe it's my poor reading comprehension skills, but I don't see where you've posted a central theme and evidence to support it. Since I'm more clever than educated,it's likely a failure on my part. Help me to understand.
Are you saying that Global Warming is happening on a catachismal rate, is being caused by human activity, namely CO-2 emmissions, and the US is the leading perpatrator of these Gases?
You're the one who said they would start a thread, yet you haven't. You haven't clearly stated what you believe about Global Warming, why, and provided scientific reference. If you want to debate, let's debate with intellectual honesty instead of arguing about the validity of periphial points. I'd like to become more educated. If I'm wrong, please edify me via an intellectual discussion.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Anomaly

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1237566' date='Apr 10 2007, 08:03 AM']Maybe it's my poor reading comprehension skills, but I don't see where you've posted a central theme and evidence to support it. Since I'm more clever than educated,it's likely a failure on my part. Help me to understand.
Are you saying that Global Warming is happening on a catachismal rate, is being caused by human activity, namely CO-2 emmissions, and the US is the leading perpatrator of these Gases?
You're the one who said they would start a thread, yet you haven't. You haven't clearly stated what you believe about Global Warming, why, and provided scientific reference. If you want to debate, let's debate with intellectual honesty instead of arguing about the validity of periphial points. I'd like to become more educated. If I'm wrong, please edify me via an intellectual discussion.[/quote]

I will start another thread in due time. Please stop ignoring the debate between you and I.

My point is that I accept the scientific consensus of AGW. What we are currently debating are the points that you made above. I have refuted all of them. It is your turn to answer me on those very points. That is what we are talking about, are you going to continue to avoid the challenge of trying to disprove my points? Please hurry up. I'm eager to see your counter points.

-Tom

[got2luvjc]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='870498' date='Jan 30 2006, 11:59 PM']liberal garbage... blah blah blah

If people where more concerned with fighting Gay marriage, abortion, and less time fighting "global warming" The World would be a better place.[/quote]


it's an old one, on the first page, but I laughed REAL hard when I read it.

those silly liberals...